Duncan V Bonta - large cap mags: Benitez hearing 12-12 in SD

[chrish4ku]

Outstanding

[CSACANNONEER]

I leave the computer for a few hours and come back to this! I couldn't be happier right now.

[kevman0154]

1 down soo many more to go...

Thank you NRA/ CRPA for sticking up for us

[Walther_Guy]

Finally!!! Nice to get a break from being slapped upside the head and kicked around all the time!!! )))

[timdps]

Cheers for a victory!

Slightly off topic, but since the DOJ has not issued regulations for the mag ban by July 1 (presumably), does this mean that regulations are no longer able to be issued for it?

T

[Discogodfather]

Originally Posted by timdps

Cheers for a victory!

Slightly off topic, but since the DOJ has not issued regulations for the mag ban by July 1 (presumably), does this mean that regulations are no longer able to be issued for it?

T

Yeah, that ship sailed months ago.

[Enterprise]

Originally Posted by thorium

It won't last in the 9th circuit, but a temporary win nonetheless.

Hopefully the supreme court takes this case then.... Huge win for now, but still a potential battle in the future.

[CandG]

Originally Posted by timdps

Cheers for a victory!

Slightly off topic, but since the DOJ has not issued regulations for the mag ban by July 1 (presumably), does this mean that regulations are no longer able to be issued for it?

T

They won't bother, we'd have seen them by now if they wanted to resubmit LCM regulations.

They realized that nobody (including the legislature) asked for them, and they didn't have a legal method with which to submit what they wanted to submit.

They've got their hands full with lawsuits and the AW ban at the moment.

[Lex Talionis]

Great news but bitter sweet.



Just think of all of the tens of thousands of owners who already destroyed or turned in their standard caps mags before the deadline. I'll bet they ain't none too happy!

[CandG]

I doubt anyone has done a single thing with any of their magazines, except maybe buy some magblocks that they haven't gotten around to putting in yet. And definitely not a single one has been turned in or destroyed.

[bhp1410]

I found this gem:

In describing Becerra's argument for the ban

"The evidentiary record is a potpourri of news pieces, State-generated documents, conflicting definitions of “mass shooting,” amorphous harms to be avoided, and a homogenous mass of horrible crimes in jurisdictions near and far for which large capacity magazines were not the cause."

eat **** !

[MajorCaliber]

Having read the injunction, I'd like to highlight a few points I found especially encouraging for the future of 2A jurisprudence. I hope these parts are widely referenced in future decisions.

1. I could never see the logic behind Heller's acceptance of "longstanding prohibitions" nor the reliance on how common or popular a weapon was for self defense. Both concepts seemed to suggest an acquiescence to the idea that a protected right could continue to be infringed as long as it had been successfully infringed for long enough in the past. This decision calls out that absurd bit of circular reasoning and flatly states that it is invalid.

2. The injection directly slaps down the logic (or lack thereof that Kamala Harris used in Silvester v. Harris, and I have seen the state use elsewhere that :

" ...(observing that “scientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law)."

Which amounts to coming into court and claiming with a straight face. "Surely Your Honor can not expect us to produce actual evidence to prove our factual claims. The actual facts are irrelevant and our mere claims of fact alone are sufficient."

3. This is the first thing I have read that gives judicial weight to the obvious truth that criminals don't obey laws and actually uses that fact to discount the anti's claims that banning a certain thing will actually reduce violence.

4.The injunction dismantles the commonly used argument that item X can be banned because "it is the most commonly used item in such and such a terrible act". Of course, once you ban item X, some other item will become the most commonly used , etc. etc. This argument is of course endless and the Judge recognized it's weakness.

The clarity of the reasoning in the injection is spectacular and spectacularly rare in a 2A case. As far as I'm concerned, I like to see this judge considered for the next Supreme Court vacancy. My only disappointment is that while the logic of the injunction, especially the takings analysis certainly suggests that seizing my grandfathered mags as a public nuisance is unconstitutional, I did not see a specific injunction against that practice. Do the legal minds here think that is now illegal also, or still legal for LEO's to do?

[bhp1410]

I advise anyone who is interested to read the injunction. It is pure poetry.

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...Injunction.pdf

[Discogodfather]

Originally Posted by subaruwrx

I found this gem:

In describing Becerra's argument for the ban

"The evidentiary record is a potpourri of news pieces, State-generated documents, conflicting definitions of “mass shooting,” amorphous harms to be avoided, and a homogenous mass of horrible crimes in jurisdictions near and far for which large capacity magazines were not the cause."

eat **** !

Yeah, this guy went all out! The wording is so contemptuous of these silly arguments I wonder if this judge isn't a pro-gun guy. The reality is he probably isn't and the law on this is so poor a purely objective legal mind has no choice but to openly ridicule it.

[kmas]

Great news!!

There is hope for us CA folk after all ...

[bhp1410]

Originally Posted by Discogodfather

Yeah, this guy went all out! The wording is so contemptuous of these silly arguments I wonder if this judge isn't a pro-gun guy. The reality is he probably isn't and the law on this is so poor a purely objective legal mind has no choice but to openly ridicule it.

I was beginning to give up hope of ever hearing a rational thought on guns from anyone in the political sphere of this state. His injunction is nothing short of inspirational.

"The rationale is anathema to the United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights guarantee of a right to keep and bear arms. It is a right naturally possessed by regular,law-abiding responsible citizens, whom are neither reliant upon, nor subservient to, a privileged, powerful, professional police state"

[bigstick61]

Originally Posted by Discogodfather

Yeah, this guy went all out! The wording is so contemptuous of these silly arguments I wonder if this judge isn't a pro-gun guy. The reality is he probably isn't and the law on this is so poor a purely objective legal mind has no choice but to openly ridicule it.

The judge sounds like he's a gun owner. There are multiple parts where he clearly displays knowledge about firearms above and beyond what the average non-gun-owner possesses and uses correct terminology where it is not unusual to hear even those involved with the law use incorrect vulgar terminology if said persons are not familiar with firearms to some extent.

[Sgt5811]

Originally Posted by Jason_2111

A whole lot of people just saved a bunch of money on postage.

...or a lot of time out on a boat somewhere!

[rawkstarr71]

Originally Posted by bigstick61

The judge sounds like he's a gun owner. There are multiple parts where he clearly displays knowledge about firearms above and beyond what the average non-gun-owner possesses and uses correct terminology where it is not unusual to hear even those involved with the law use incorrect vulgar terminology if said persons are not familiar with firearms to some extent.

Thank God, please let this be a lasting act, I'm so close to moving out of California

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[Discogodfather]

I did a double take when I opened the PDF. The first line is so contemptuous and full of ridicule I thought a calguns member was joking around and made a fake injunction or something, lol.

"On July 1, 2017, any previously law-abiding person in California who still
possesses a firearm magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds will begin their new life of crime. "

Lol, like mana from heaven. The guy has a sense of humor too.

[PMACA_MFG]

FINALLY SOMEONE WHO UNDERSTANDS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "A" AND "THE"

[OleCuss]

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

There's always a chance this could win the 1st round at the 9th, as Peruta did (just citing the example that seems to keep getting brought up), and then NOT be granted en banc with the 9th nor cert with SCOTUS.

En banc hearings are relatively rare (only around 0.1% of cases get heard en banc), they aren't going to just grant it to every 2a case that comes their way - especially with the massive quantity of them that have been filed as of late.

In recent firearms cases in which the 3-judge panel issued an opinion which might be considered friendly to the RKBA isn't the en banc review rate closer to 100%?

[painkiller]

Glad we can have independence day again!

[ambis]

Love how Becerra says it's important to inform Californians of how policy changes affect their rights (for immigrants), but not when it comes to banning property legally acquired by citizens and making them criminals overnight

[colossians323]

Originally Posted by Lex Talionis

Great news but bitter sweet.



Just think of all of the tens of thousands of owners who already destroyed or turned in their standard caps mags before the deadline. I'll bet they ain't none too happy!

do you really think people did this?

[Swift04]

Can someone explain to me in dumb terms what this means

[ambis]

ban on legally owned standard cap mags that was to take place on 7/1 is temporarily halted.

[ScottsBad]

Good news! Happy to see my long term investments in the CRPA are paying off. Great job CRPA and NRA. The long fight continues.

[geoint]

Im happy for you guys! Hopefully this is the beginning of a new direction for CA!

The state has a million other problems besides gun rights but still, a win is a win and I know how much that law was gonna suck for the gun owning community back in CA so I am glad you guys can avoid that draconian BS that was going to go into effect next month.

[Medic451]

Any chance this would lead to all of Prop 63 being overturned?

[bacon_lover]

I wonder if I should cancel today's fishing trip on a rusted-out dinghy captained by Francesco Schettino (of Costa Concordia fame).

[ronlglock]

Originally Posted by Medic451

Any chance this would lead to all of Prop 63 being overturned?

My guess is that the arguments provided by the judge could be used to attack other portions. But I am not a lawyer.

[CandG]

The other aspects of prop 63 will probably be handled with other additional lawsuits, the complaint in this suit doesn't mention ammo background checks (a good thing, IMO. To many different complaints in one suit isn't always the best route to take. The ammo BGCs deserve a suit all their own, which we'll probably see in the coming months, with perhaps another injunction if we're lucky)

[Jimi Jah]

The 9th will overrule this pronto.

[machrono]

Originally Posted by bigstick61

The judge sounds like he's a gun owner. There are multiple parts where he clearly displays knowledge about firearms above and beyond what the average non-gun-owner possesses and uses correct terminology where it is not unusual to hear even those involved with the law use incorrect vulgar terminology if said persons are not familiar with firearms to some extent.

I believe that the CRPA wrote the injunction, and presented it for the Judge to sign, which he did.

Wow!!!!

Think of how many less boating accidents there will be this weekend!!!

[John Browning]

Originally Posted by Jimi Jah

The 9th will overrule this pronto.

What's the likely timeline moving forward?

I'm sure this ends at the Supreme Court. If we can replace RBG and Kennedy, it might be the way in which we kill magazine capacity limits altogether.

[Corpral_Agarn]

This is the best news I have read in a LONG time.

[Ocguy31]

From Becerra's press release on the PI, you can tell they have no real response to this. His reasoning involves two points that were brutally knocked back in the 66 pages: The fact that the majority voted for it, and "public safety".

[CandG]

Originally Posted by Jimi Jah

The 9th will overrule this pronto.

If you mean they'll knock down the injuction, I am betting they won't. Even if DOJ appeals the decision (which there isn't any indication yet that they will), the grounds for the injunction are very solid - there's a defined and irreversible injury to millions of californians if the law were allowed to proceed before the case is ruled.

If you mean they'll knock down the ruling, when there is one, then the answer is maybe. Depends largely on which judge(s) we get on our panel. Although liberal judges outnumber conservatives in the 9th, we do still have a number of freethinking constitutional judges. Remember, even Peruta won the 9th, it's only failure was in being granted an en banc hearing which essentially doomed it, but as I mentioned above, only roughly 0.1% (1 in 1000) of all cases in circuit courts are granted an en banc hearing.

[Shadrac]

This is great news at a time we needed a win. Thank you NRA, CRPA, Et al.!